George, never have I read a more slanted and biased article. As a journalists,
you have a responsibility to present the facts on both sides of an issue. I
wonder what has happened to the integrity of journalism these days.

The CEOs ran this company into bankruptcy multiple times while at the same
time increasing their pay and bonuses triple fold. In addition, hedge fund
managers put the squeeze on the company.

There are two sides to this
issue. If one cannot report the complete story, perhaps they should not be
reporting on the issue at all.

There are valid conversations to be had about the appropriate role and potential
overreach of unions in today's workplace, but it looks like Hostess was a
terminally ill patient that simply died a bit sooner because of the union
strike. As much as some conservatives want this to be a poster child in the
fight against unions, the unions didn't cause the demise of the company;
changing market forces and poor management made the company fragile.

I am curious as to how a company so large and pervasive that their products
are sold in every grocery store and gas station across a country with 330
million people can somehow go out of business. That is sheer lunacy to me.

The union did the right thing. Most of Hostess brands will be revived by another
company. And if not sales of other similar brands will increase. Therefore job
losses will only be temporary. It benefits workers that companies with a clue as
how to manage employ them. Mismanaged companies tend to pay workers less (as in
the case of Hostess) and at the same time their clueless execs give themselves
undeserved pay raises (as in the case of hostess).

Now that hostess
is gone, the employees can get a job with another similar company who will pay a
decent wage, and treat them fairly.

Unions did not destroy this company. It was destroyed by poor management and a
flock of venture capitalists and outfits similar to Bain Capital.

The
workers are the losers. The capitalists and executives will walk away with
million dollar plus Golden Parachutes. One example being the CEO who just
recently was handed a 300% pay raise. Greg Rayburn was being paid $100,000 PER
MONTH for his "services."

At least nine other top executives
of the company also received massive pay raises, including one who received a
pay increase from $500,000 to $900,000 and another received one that brought his
salary from $375,000 to $656,256.

“I still see no reason for unions now days. They have
the government to protect everything. OSHA and other agencies are much better
then any union.”

“They” are us. We are all a part
of the union called the United States of America. Don’t let the name fool
you, America is about people. Unlike our state and local governments, the
national government in not yet completely under the control of business
interests. So the national government is our last hope for people.

The proper treatment of the Hostess failure would be a government
investigation to assign true guilt for the failure and assign responsibility to
those individuals. The people harmed by the failure should have financial
recourse and be able to sue for damages.

One has to laugh at the uninformed insults to Bain Capital (whose CEO gave money
to Obama). They are more efficient and successful at saving bad companies than
the unions who have sought to destroy businesses. Our government didn't
need Bain to declare bankruptcy at Solyndra and the other Obama boondoggles that
have cost we tax payers billions and put thousands on unemployment. If the
government were in charge of Hostess they would have bailed them out with a huge
loan before they went under.

The dismissal of the Union involvement is amazing. Look at what the unions
demanded. Hostess couldn't ship Twinkies and bread on the same truck. How
many other insane union rules cost the company money and prevented them from
staying in business?

If a union can demand that Twinkies and bread
are to be shipped separately, how many other union decisions directly altered
business practices in the bakeries?